linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:25:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180209132544.GI12979@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0i9ZpRZKd7FNLnC6SucJnOump4xhQhf9QabXOSTf_qfyw@mail.gmail.com>

On 09/02/18 13:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 09/02/18 13:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:

[...]

> >> > My impression is that rate limit helps a lot for CFS, where the "true"
> >> > utilization is not known in advance, and being too responsive might
> >> > actually be counterproductive.
> >> >
> >> > For DEADLINE (and RT, with differences) we should always respond as
> >> > quick as we can (and probably remember that a frequency transition was
> >> > requested if hw was already performing one, but that's another patch)
> >> > because, if we don't, a task belonging to a lower priority class might
> >> > induce deadline misses in highest priority activities. E.g., a CFS task
> >> > that happens to trigger a freq switch right before a DEADLINE task wakes
> >> > up and needs an higher frequency to meet its deadline: if we wait for
> >> > the rate limit of the CFS originated transition.. deadline miss!
> >>
> >> Fair enough, but if there's too much overhead as a result of this, you
> >> can't guarantee the deadlines to be met anyway.
> >
> > Indeed. I guess this only works if corner cases as the one above don't
> > happen too often.
> 
> Well, that's the point.
> 
> So there is a tradeoff: do we want to allow deadlines to be missed
> because of excessive overhead or do we want to allow deadlines to be
> missed because of the rate limit.

The difference between the two seems to be that while overhead is an
intrisic hw thing, rate limit is something we have mostly to cope with
the nature of certain classes of tasks and how we describe/track them
(at least IMHO). I'd say that for other classes of tasks (DL/RT) we
would be better off consciously living with the former only and accept
that real world is "seldom" not ideal.

But then again this is just another theory, experiments might easily
prove me wrong. :)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-02-09 13:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-08 17:01 [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE Claudio Scordino
2018-02-09  3:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-02-09  8:02   ` Claudio Scordino
2018-02-09  8:40     ` Viresh Kumar
2018-02-09 10:36     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-09 10:53       ` Juri Lelli
2018-02-09 11:04         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-09 11:26           ` Juri Lelli
2018-02-09 11:37             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-09 11:51               ` Juri Lelli
2018-02-09 12:08                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-09 12:52                   ` Juri Lelli
2018-02-09 12:56                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-09 13:20                       ` Claudio Scordino
2018-02-09 13:25                       ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2018-02-09 11:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180209132544.GI12979@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tkjos@android.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).